There is little doubt that the legislature has the power to engage in such social engineering if it chooses to do so. Such official affirmation of homosexual conduct would be a way for politicians to appease the two to three percent of the population who self-identify as “gay” or “lesbian” and placate others who do not grasp the implications of this massive social change.

But same-sex “marriage” is not being sold as a political payoff, or even (primarily) as a social service providing a package of legal and financial benefits to this population. Instead, advocates of redefining marriage argue that a belief in “civil rights” and “equality” actually compel such a radical redefinition of our most fundamental social institution.

Yet it was only six years ago that the state’s Supreme Court, in the case of Andersen v. King County, rejected such arguments in upholding the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act.

Justice (now Chief Justice) Barbara Madsen pointed out in her majority opinion that while the U. S. Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a “fundamental right,” it has done so only in the context of marriages between a man and a woman, since they relate to “procreation and the survival of the human race.”

In his concurrence, Justice James M. Johnson noted that the only “inequality” in the current law is between different types of couples, not individuals. “Professed homosexuals, like all Washingtonians, are clearly allowed to marry in Washington.” Yet all individuals also face limits on their choice of marriage partner: “A person may not marry someone under age 17, may not marry if already married, may not marry a close relative, and may not marry if ‘the parties are persons other than a male and a female.’ The last prohibition, like the bigamy/polygamy prohibition, is definitional.”

There is no question that opposite-sex couples are unique; as Justice Madsen noted, “[N]o other relationship has the potential to create, without third party involvement, a child biologically related to both parents.” The link between marriage and procreation “is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate,” nor by the fact that some same-sex couples raise children; “Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis” for treating opposite-sex couples uniquely.

Marriage serves not only to encourage the potentially procreative relationships of opposite-sex couples, but also to regulate them. Justice Madsen quoted a 2005 Indiana court decision which noted that procreation is sometimes accidental: “[The] institution of opposite-sex marriage both encourages such couples to enter into a stable relationship before having children and to remain in such a relationship if children arrive during the marriage unexpectedly.”

Not only are opposite-sex couples the only ones capable of natural procreation, but they also provide the best environment for child-rearing. As Justice Johnson wrote: “The legislature was offered evidence that children tend to thrive best in families consisting of mothers, fathers, and their biological children. … Direct comparisons between opposite-sex homes and same-sex homes further support the former as a better environment for children. For example, studies show an average shorter term commitment and more sexual partners for same-sex couples.”

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” regularly confuse one of the personal reasons why individual couples choose to marry – to express love and commitment – with the public purposes of marriage as a social institution. Justice Madsen was blunt in noting that “the right to marry is not grounded in the State’s interest in promoting loving, committed relationships. While desirable, nowhere in any marriage statute of this state has the legislature expressed this goal.”

Some people argue that other changes in the institution of marriage, as well as technologies which have separated sexual relations from procreation, mean that the historic definition of marriage can be abandoned. But as Justice Johnson noted, quoting a brief submitted by Families Northwest, “[W]idespread contraceptive and abortion rights may actually make more salient, not less, the traditional role of marriage in encouraging men and women to make the next generation that society needs. The more … choice individuals have about whether or not to have children, the more need there is for a social institution that encourages men and women to have babies together, and creates the conditions under which those children are likely to get the best care.”

In 2006, Justice Madsen said for the court, “We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite sex-couples furthers the State’s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.”

The legislature would be wise to conclude the same today.

The Associated Press reports that the Greek government has expanded its list of officially recognized “disabilities” to include pedophiles (as well as exhibitionists, kleptomaniacs, and pyromaniacs).

This mean pedophiles in Greece may now qualify for government-funded disability pay—not despite, but because of, their pedophilia.

I assume that the “disability” classification stems from identifying pedophilia as a mental illness. Yet not every “illness” is a “disability.” Wikipedia offers several definitions of “disability,” but a central concept is the existence of a “restriction in the ability to perform a normal activity of daily living.” Pedophiles do not have a “restriction in the ability to perform a normal activity.” They have an inclination to perform an abnormal activity. This is not a disability.

Taking pedophilia out of the realm of moral judgment and into the realm of mental health is one step toward normalizing it. Some advocates, like those at a conference in Baltimore last summer, would like to go the rest of the way and remove pedophilia from the list of mental disorders altogether. Now Greece is on the verge of actively subsidizing it.

Taken to an extreme, the Greek action runs the risk of creating a truly perverse incentive—for otherwise healthy individuals to become (or pretend to be) pedophiles merely in order to obtain government support payments.

Fortunately, Greek disability advocates have condemned the move as “incomprehensible.” Yannis Vardakastanis, who is blind, said, “It’s really not not serious to grant Peeping Toms a 20-30 pecent disability rate and 10 percent to diabetics.”

Given the fiscal crisis that has confronted Greece in recent years, it boggles the mind that they would even consider giving payments to pedophiles.

Note: Dr. Brown will be giving a policy lecture about his book at the Family Research Council in Washington, DC on Thursday, January 5, 2012. For more information and to register, click here.

Reviewed by Caleb H. Price

In the span of a few short years, American culture has undergone a breath-taking shift in attitudes about homosexuality and transgenderism. Behaviors that were recently viewed by most to be unseemly, if not immoral, are now embraced.  What was good is now evil. What was evil is now good.

And while homosexual and transgender activists insist that there is no agenda in play, a closer look shows that this 180-degree turn was no accident.

In his latest book, A Queer Thing Happened to America, Dr. Michael L. Brown documents this cultural sea-change. Here, he takes the reader on an eye-popping account of the strange and bewildering trajectory that gay activists have charted for America.

And he persuasively argues that the trip we’re on will result in the catastrophic deconstruction of the most basic building blocks of human society – biological sex, marriage and family.

The topics covered in this comprehensive work are timely and helpful for understanding the GLBT political agenda. Brown fearlessly engages political correctness on these issues and winsomely encourages concerned citizens to step up the plate and take action before it’s too late.

Specifically, Brown details how our schools and universities have been strategically targeted by GLBT activists to bring about their revolution in the span of two short generations. Terms like “tolerance” and “diversity” now almost exclusively refer to sexual orientation and gender identity. And intellectually honest debate on these issues has been completely stifled in the academic and mental health professions.

In this context, Brown offers a strong rebuttal to the “born gay’ myth and the largely unquestioned view among cultural elites that “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are equivalent to race. And he points out the undeniable and disturbing parallels of this equation to issues like polyamory and pedophilia.

Significantly, A Queer Thing offers an indictment of the one-sided embrace of the GLBT political agenda by media and corporate elites – and the mean-spirited attack on those who hold to traditional values on these issues.  Here, Brown treats the semantic issues well and shows how GLBT activists have masterfully reframed terms to advance their agenda.

Similarly, Brown provides a helpful understanding of – and rebuttal to – of the GLBT revisionist theology that has taken root in both the church and secular arenas. Given that Christians are called to offer a winsome answer for their convictions, this section is very helpful in equipping those who feel inept discussing these difficult issues.

At its core, A Queer Thing details the totalitarian nature of the GLBT rights movement. The inevitable conflict between religious liberty and sexual freedom is chillingly presented. Here, those who disagree with Brown will be particularly challenged.

Winsome and witty, well reasoned and meticulously researched, Michael Brown raises the bar with A Queer Thing and calls citizens to take action to turn the tide of the GLBT agenda at the local level. There’s even an accompanying website offering detailed action steps for citizen involvement (www.aqueerthing.com).

As early as October of 2010, however, experts on suicide prevention were warning that this simplistic approach linking suicides (which are always tragic) to bullying (which is always wrong) could do more harm than good. An article based on an interview with Ann Haas, research director for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, asked, “[W]hat if the way we’re talking about these suicides could actually be encouraging vulnerable young people to copycat the tragic behavior?”

A year later, a commentary last month on the website of The Advocate, the nation’s leading “gay” magazine, finally admitted that this is a serious problem. David McFarland is “interim executive director and CEO” of The Trevor Project, which runs a suicide prevention hotline for “LGBT” youth. McFarland cited the political and cultural “benefit from showcasing the health crisis of disproportionate rates of suicide and incidences of bullying that affect LBGT young people.” However—in an astonishing admission—he also acknowledged that “this tactic has also increased suicide risk.”

Got that? Here is a pro-homosexual activist admitting that “this tactic” (“showcasing . . . suicide and . . . bullying”) “has also increased suicide risk” (emphasis added).

There are three key problems with the “bullying causes suicide” theme. The first is that it ignores most of what we know about the causes of suicide. McFarland acknowledges gently that “the reasons a person attempts suicide are . . . complicated,” and notes that “suicide is closely tied to psychological well-being.” Haas was more blunt, indicating to the reporter that “underlying mental-health issues . . . are present in 90 percent of people who die by suicide.” In other words, most people who are bullied do not commit suicide. It is mental illness—not bullying—that causes most suicides.

However, the second problem with emphasizing the link between bullying and suicide is that, as McFarland states, “it can influence someone who is at-risk to assume that taking your own life is what you’re supposed to do next if you are LGBT or bullied.” Haas made the same point a year ago, warning that publicly identifying bullying as a motive for suicide can “mak[e] suicide seem like an understandable, if not unavoidable, culmination of a person’s experience.” She added, “Suicide is not a rational act.” McFarland makes the same point, declaring that “we can help avoid making suicide appear like a logical choice.”

The third problem, which flows out of the second, is what McFarland refers to as “suicide contagion.” He warns that “the more a story of a particular victim is out there, the more likely one or more people who are at-risk will also attempt suicide.” Haas warned, “Stories depicting the person who’s died by suicide as very sympathetic can inadvertently encourage vulnerable young people to identify with him or her.” In other words, being revered as a martyr in death can appear more attractive than experiencing continuing pain in life.

We should do all we can to help young people with mental illness—whether homosexual or heterosexual—and to prevent teen suicides. And we should do all we can to prevent bullying of any child—for their sexual orientation, appearance, religion, or any other reason. But it is time for homosexual activists to stop exploiting personal tragedies to advance their political agenda—especially in a way that may cause more such tragedies.

However, he ignores two huge “elephants in the room.” The first is the role of behavior change in reducing infections. A Ugandan AIDS prevention official wrote in the Post in 2008 about his country’s success in dramatically reducing AIDS prevalence through use of the “ABC” message—“Abstain” from sex until marriage, “Be faithful” to your spouse, and “use Condoms” only if you fail at A and B. Gerson celebrates that the cost of treatment is now less than $350 per person; but Sam L. Ruteikara noted, “Our successful ABC campaign cost just 29 cents per person each year.”

Gerson noted that circumcision has reduced “the risk of transmission from women to men,” and that early treatment reduced “transmission to a heterosexual partner.” This may be encouraging for Africa, but is less so at home, where the CDC reports that “more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV” are men who have sex with men (MSM), “the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily.” Discouraging anal intercourse and sex with multiple partners—practices not unique to homosexual men, but more prevalent among them—are part of “the only morally acceptable strategy” to help America share in the end of AIDS.

In Arlington Heights, Illinois, bricks were thrown through the glass doors and windows of the Christian Liberty Academy. That night, the Christian school was to host a banquet put on by Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH), a pro-family organization led by Peter LaBarbera. The banquet was to feature presentation of an award to Scott Lively, another pro-family activist who heads Abiding Truth Ministries.

In the other incident, an office door and two display cases of the GLBT Center at North Carolina State University in Raleigh were defaced with spray paint, including an anti-gay epithet.

Both acts of vandalism were contemptible, and Family Research Council (FRC) condemns them both equally. The debates over homosexuality, however emotional they may become, should be carried on peacefully by those on both sides. Physical attacks on people or property are never justified. (Will liberal groups join us in equally denouncing both acts? The Southern Poverty Law Center, which is quick to accuse conservatives of “hate,” chose to blame the victims, criticizing the attackers in Illinois primarily for “[a]dding fuel to a fire started and stoked by anti-gay activists.”)

So are there any differences between these two incidents? Yes. There is not the slightest evidence that the spray paint attack at NC State had any connection with any religious or political organization or public policy issue, or that it was perpetrated by anyone other than a lone thug.

In the attack on the Christian Liberty Academy, however, the vandals made clear that their attack was directed specifically at the work of AFTAH and Lively. A note accompanying one of the bricks said, “This is just a sample of what we will do if you don’t shut down Scott Lively and AFTAH.” It followed with obscenities (edited here): “F*** Scott Lively” and “Quit the homophobic s***!” The other brick had written directly on it, “Shut down Lively.”

If that weren’t bad enough, an anonymous person posted a detailed claim of credit for the attack on the left-wing “Chicago Independent Media Center” website. It included this declaration:

These chunks of concrete were thrown through these windows and doors for two reasons: to show that there is a consequence for hatred and homophobia in our community and to directly cause this event to be shut down.

(It is bizarre that anyone could think throwing bricks through school windows could be considered a way of combating “hatred.”)

Were either or both of these incidents “hate crimes?” In a generic sense, as the term “hate crime” is typically used, both were “hate crimes.” Both involved criminal acts, and both were motivated by characteristics of the victims (in the one case, sexual orientation, and in the other, religion, or more specifically religious beliefs in opposition to homosexual conduct).

In the legal sense, however, neither of these fit under the definition of “hate crimes” that merit federal intervention, according to the 2009 law passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. The new federal hate crimes bill applies only to cases where a person  “willfully causes bodily injury” or “attempts to cause bodily injury,” so crimes of vandalism directed only at property are not covered.

Some states have their own “hate crime” laws featuring broader definitions than the federal statute. North Carolina, however, does not include “sexual orientation” as one of the protected categories in its hate crime law.

Illinois, on the other hand, has a hate crime law that does cover religion as a protected category. It also states explicitly that even an act of “misdemeanor criminal damage to property” will be treated as a Class 3 felony if it is motivated by bias and takes places on property used for religious purposes (such as the Christian Liberty Academy).

Thus, under current state laws, the North Carolina incident would appear not to be a “hate crime,” but the Illinois one would be. However, police treatment of the two cases appears to be diametrically opposite of what the law would suggest. Authorities in North Carolina say they are investigating the spray paint attack as a “hate incident,” while those in Illinois say there was no “hate crime” because Lively was targeted for his views, not his religion.

While Christian moral teachings are not the only reason to oppose homosexual conduct, does anyone seriously believe that if an African American church were targeted for supporting civil rights protections, or a Jewish synagogue were targeted for giving aid to Israel, it would not be considered a “hate crime?”

Family Research Council opposes the entire concept of “hate crimes,” because we believe that criminal laws should punish actions alone, not the personal opinions of those who commit those actions. We hope that both the Illinois and North Carolina incidents will be thoroughly investigated, solved, and prosecuted on that basis.

Nevertheless, the selective application of the hate crime law in Illinois shows that such laws are actually not applied on a neutral basis, but are used primarily when they will advance a politically correct cause, such as the affirmation of homosexual conduct.

While both the Illinois and North Carolina incidents were “hateful” on their face, there is another factor at work in the attack on Christian Liberty Academy. Those who claimed credit for the attack online said it had a specific goal—“to directly cause this event [the AFTAH banquet that night] to be shut down” (in this they failed—the program went forward as scheduled). They also warned of similar attacks in the future: “If this event is not shut down, and the homophobic day trainings [a reference to AFTAH’s “Truth Academy” educational programs] do not end, the Christian liberty academy will continue to be under constant attack.”

There is a word for the use of violence to deter others from opposing your political agenda. That word is not just “hate,” but “terrorism.”

Some who posted comments under the claim of credit for the Illinois attack condemned it: “As a gay man, I cannot condone your actions. Violence is never acceptable.” Shockingly, though, a number of the comments actually praised this act of pro-“gay” terrorism.

Some were mild in their endorsement—“These kinds of actions may have their place,” and “It should be respected.” Others, however were downright gleeful: “lol those homophobes got served maybe they think twice before bringing fascists to our town again;” and, “I only wish I could have been there with a truckload of ‘concrete blocks’ for smashing. Let’s STONE those haters for the criminals they are.”

There is such a thing as “anti-gay hate.” The attack on the GLBT Center at NC State is an example of it, and FRC does not hesitate to condemn it.

Peaceful opposition to demands for official affirmation of homosexual conduct, however, is not “hate.”

And the terrorism at the Christian Liberty Academy shows that it may be those making such pro-homosexual demands who are guilty of the most “hatred” toward their opponents.

Today (Monday, September 19), Broadway will be the scene of a star-studded “staged reading” of a new play–one based on the transcript of the trial in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now known as Perry v. Brown). The unprecedented trial, presided over by the (then closeted, now “out”) homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, resulted in Walker’s opinion in August 2010 declaring that the male-female definition of marriage violates the U. S. Constitution. The ruling is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

Yet the testimony of one of the actual plaintiffs in the case, Sandra Stier, undermines the argument by same-sex “marriage” advocates that “gay people are denied the fundamental right to marry just because of ‘who they are.’” It also directly contradicts Judge Walker’s “finding of fact” number 51: “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.” In fact, Stier’s testimony undermines two of the most fundamental premises of the entire homosexual movement–the claims that people are “born gay,” and that a person’s sexual orientation can never change.

Stier testified that she was married–to a man–for twelve years, and had two biological children with him. Even more startling is her admission that she did not “learn” that she was a lesbian until she was in “her mid-thirties.”

Part 1 of this post featured the beginning of attorney Ted Olson’s direct examination of Stier, dealing with her marriage to her husband.

This, Part 2, features Stier’s testimony about her relationship with her current lesbian partner, Kristin Perry.

Stier’s testimony appears in bold; [my editorial comments are in bracket and italics].

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Trial—Day 1

1/11/2010 9:00:00 AM

Transcript pp. 163-167

. . . .

Q. When did you meet Ms. Perry?

A. I met Kris around 1996.

Q. And how did your relationship with her develop? And – go ahead.

A. Well, when I first met Kris, of course, I hadn’t known her previously. I was teaching a computer class and she was a student in my class. So I just sort of knew of her, but then we started working together on projects at work and ended up being coworkers and became fast friends quite quickly. And we were friends for quite some time and I began to realize that the feelings I had for her were really unique and different from friends, feelings I normally had towards friends. And they were absolutely taking over my thoughts and my — sort of my entire self. And I grew to realize I had a very strong attraction to her and, indeed, I was falling in love with her.

Q. And tell us when you realized finally that you had fallen in love with her?

A. I really — I realized that in 1999, early in the year.

[Other anecdotal accounts of lesbian relationships suggest that this pattern is fairly typical—they begin as friendships which grow more and more intimate emotionally, and only at the end become sexual. She does not report that she looked at her partner and immediately—or even quickly—felt a strong sexual attraction to her. Again, this undermines the claim that all lesbians have an innate “orientation” which makes them sexually attracted to women in general.]

Q. Did your falling in love with Kris have anything to do with the dissolution of your marriage?

A. My marriage was troubled on many fronts and had been in a very, very difficult state. And the end of my marriage was precipitated by my own extreme unhappiness, my ex-husband’s severe problems with alcohol and his inability to provide the type of support as a husband and a family person that I had to have.

[Since Stier realized “in 1999, early in the year” that she was “in love with” Kristin Perry, and her marriage also ended in 1999, it is somewhat difficult to give credence to this denial, whatever difficulties her husband may have had. Advocates of same-sex “marriage” often ask, “What harm could same-sex marriage do to your marriage?” In the case of Stier’s marriage, it appears that society’s growing acceptance of homosexual relationships may have made it easier for her to leave her husband. If same-sex “marriage” were legalized, and it were possible to go directly from a heterosexual marriage to a homosexual one, the incentive to break up the first marriage might be even greater. This—the breakup of some existing opposite-sex marriages—is a potential harm of same-sex “marriage” which is very real. However, it is impossible to predict in advance who will experience it.]

Q. Did your sexual orientation or your discovery of your sexual orientation have anything to do with the dissolution of that marriage?

A. No, it did not.

[Again, this is a fascinating admission. It would seem more consistent with typical homosexual propaganda for her to say, as noted above, “I realized I was living a lie,” or “I decided it was time to be who I really am.”

Judge Walker supported his Finding 51 with testimony from a witness who stated:

“Some gay men and lesbians have married members of the opposite sex, but many of those marriages dissolve, and some of them experience considerable problems simply because one of the partners is gay or lesbian. A gay or lesbian person marrying a person of the opposite sex is likely to create a great deal of conflict and tension in the relationship.”

Yet Sandra Stier’s testimony clearly does not support this theory. She states flatly that her “discovery of [her] sexual orientation” did not “have anything to do with the dissolution of that marriage.” The implication seems to be that if her husband had not had “severe problems with alcohol” and had been able “to provide the type of support as a husband and a family person” that she needed; and if she had not met and fallen “in love with” Kristin Perry; she might well have remained married to her husband until his death, never “learning” that she was “gay.”]

Q. Your husband is no longer living, is that correct?

A. That’s true.

Q. Then tell us about how your relationship with Ms. Perry developed?

A. Well, my relationship with Kris, the romantic part of the relationship certainly started for me in a — just a very exciting place. I had never experienced falling in love before, and I think –

Q. Are you saying that you weren’t in love with your husband?

A. I was not in love with my husband, no.

Q. Did you think that you were at some point?

A. I had a hard time relating to the concept of being in love when I was married to my husband. And while I did love him when I married him, I honestly just couldn’t relate when people said they were in love. I thought they were overstating their feelings and maybe making a really big deal out of something. It didn’t really make sense to me. It seemed dramatic. You know, when you grow up in the midwest and in a farming family — which is a really unique way to grow up, if anybody knows much about that — but there is a pragmatism that is inherent and it’s part of the fabric of life and an understated way of being that is just pervasive in terms of your development. And I remember as a young girl talking to my mom about love and marriage and she would say, “You know, marriage is more than romantic love. It’s more than excitement. It’s an enduring long-term commitment and it’s hard work.” And in my family that seemed very true.

(Laughter.)

[It saddens me that there was laughter in the courtroom at the statement that “[marriage is] an enduring long-term commitment and it’s hard work.” Truer words were never spoken—even with couples who were madly in love when they first married, and even with couples who still are.]

So I really thought that was what I was kind of signing up for when I got married; not that it would be bad, but that it would be hard work and I would grow into that love, and that I needed to marry a good, solid person and I would grow into something like my parents had, which was really a lovely marriage and still is.

[I am glad that she says that her mother and father’s marriage—presumably one that modeled that “enduring long-term commitment” and “hard work”—“was really a lovely marriage and still is.” It was also a fruitful one—without the natural procreation possible only in opposite-sex relationships, Ms. Stier’s life would never have begun. It is simply obtuse to deny that this is the central reason why marriage is a public institution, and why it is defined as a male-female union.]

Q. And then you were — I interrupted you. You were in the midst of describing what happened in terms of your own feelings as your relationship with Ms. Perry developed?

A. Well, with Kris my — so we have this wonderfully romantic relationship and — that just really grew and blossomed very beautifully. And not only were we in love, but we wanted – we realized fairly soon that we wanted to build a life together. We wanted to join our families and live as a family. That we didn’t want to date. I was 36 or 37 years old, and Kris is a tiny about it younger than me, but we really wanted to build a family together and have that kind of life of commitment and stability that we both really appreciated.

Q. How convinced are you that you are gay? You’ve lived with a husband. You said you loved him. Some people might say, Well, it’s this and then it’s that and it could be this again. Answer that.

A. Well, I’m convinced, because at 47 years old I have fallen in love one time and it’s with Kris. And our love is — it’s a blend of many things. It’s physical attraction. It’s romantic attraction. It’s a strong commitment. It’s intellectual bonding and emotional bonding. For me, it just isn’t love. I really, quite frankly, don’t know what that would be for adults. I don’t know what else to say about it.

[She “has fallen in love one time and it’s with Kris.” This seems a rather limited data point on which to base any claim that she has an innate lesbian identity—an enduring pattern of sexual attraction toward other women.]

Q. Why are you a plaintiff in this case?

A. Well, I’m a plaintiff in this case because I would like to get married, and I would like to marry the person that I choose and that is Kris Perry. She is a woman. And according to California law right now, we can’t get married, and I want to get married.

[This is a succinct and accurate statement of her situation under the current law. And some people—people who feel there is nothing morally wrong with engaging in homosexual conduct; that the definition of marriage has nothing to do with the procreative potential of opposite-sex relationships; that being raised by both their mother and father provides no advantage to children; and that changing the definition of marriage would have no impact at all on the institution of marriage—may sympathize with it and wish to see Stier’s desire to marry Perry be fulfilled.

However, this provides no basis whatsoever for claiming that California’s definition of marriage violates the United States Constitution. Thwarting a person’s desires is not at all the same as violating a person’s constitutional rights.] 

The Perry case is the federal constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman which was adopted by California voters in 2008. The unprecedented trial, presided over by the (then closeted, now “out”) homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, resulted in Walker’s stunningly biased opinion in August 2010 declaring that the male-female definition of marriage violates the U. S. Constitution. The ruling is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit—but if upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court, it would force the legalization of same-sex “marriage” on all fifty states (overturning the constitutions of thirty).

The play, titled simply “8,” was written by homosexual writer Dustin Lance Black, who won an Oscar for his screenplay for the biopic “Milk,” about the murdered homosexual San Francisco politician Harvey Milk. Actors Morgan Freeman and John Lithgow will portray attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, the prominent Democratic and Republican attorneys (respectively) who teamed up to argue the case against Proposition 8. The one-night reading is a fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization formed to finance the lawsuit.

Homosexual activists seem convinced that publicizing the transcript of the trial will help persuade the public that Walker’s ruling was correct. Yet in truth, there is much in the transcript that directly contradicts Judge Walker’s opinion and his spurious “findings of fact.”

In particular, the testimony of one of the actual plaintiffs in the case, Sandra Stier, undermines the argument by same-sex “marriage” advocates that “gay people are denied the fundamental right to marry just because of ‘who they are.’” It also directly contradicts Judge Walker’s “finding of fact” number 51: “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.” In fact, Stier’s testimony undermines two of the most fundamental premises of the entire homosexual movement—the claims that people are “born gay,” and that a person’s sexual orientation can never change.

As Stier made clear in answering Olson’s questioning, she was married—to a man—for twelve years, and had two biological children with him. Even more startling is her admission that she did not “learn” that she was a lesbian until she was in “her mid-thirties.”

Below is the transcript of the beginning of Olson’s direct examination of Stier, dealing with her marriage to her husband. Part 2 of this post will go over Stier’s testimony about her relationship with her current lesbian partner, Kristin Perry.

Stier’s testimony appears in bold; [my editorial comments are in bracket and italics].

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Trial—Day 1

1/11/2010 9:00:00 AM

Transcript pp. 160-163

PERRY – DIRECT EXAMINATION / OLSON 160

 

THE COURT: Mr. Olson, your next witness.

 

MR. OLSON: Thank you. The plaintiffs would like to call plaintiff Sandra Stier.

 

SANDRA STIER, called as a witness for the Plaintiffs herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

 

THE WITNESS: Yes.

 

THE CLERK: Thank you. State your name, please?

 

THE WITNESS: Sandra Belzer Stier.

 

THE CLERK: Spell your last name?

 

THE WITNESS: S-t-i-e-r.

 

THE CLERK: And your first name?

 

THE WITNESS: S-a-n-d-r-a.

 

THE CLERK: Thank you.

 

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OLSON:

 

Q. Ms. Stier, are you one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit?

 

A. Yes, I am.

 

Q. Would you describe for us and for the Court your background; where you are from, your age, what you do professionally and your family?

 

A. Well, I — I grew up in the midwest. I grew up on a farm in southern Iowa. I’m 47 years old. My background is, really, I lived in Iowa for my youth. I grew up going to public schools, attended college in Iowa, moved to California right after college, and I now work for Alameda County — or for a county government as an information system director in healthcare systems.

 

Q. And do you — you live with Ms. Perry?

 

A. I do.

 

Q. And tell us about your family?

 

A. Well, our family is a blended family with our four boys. We each bring two biological children to our family and each other.

 

[Here is the first hint that the plaintiffs—both Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier—may not have always been “lesbians.” Both brought to their relationship “biological children.” Unless they were conceived by a sperm donor through artificial insemination, this would suggest that both had been in sexual relationships with men at one time.]

 

Q. And just their general ages?

 

A. Well, our two younger sons are in high school. They are teen-agers. And our two older sons are out of high school, young adults.

 

Q. How would you describe your sexual orientation?

 

A. I’m gay.

 

Q. When did you learn that about yourself?

 

A. I really learned it about myself fairly late in life, in my mid-thirties.

 

[Usually, when homosexual activists are promoting the “born gay, can’t change” myth, they trot out people who say, “I’ve known I was gay all my life.” Yet their plaintiff in this landmark court case admits that she did not “learn” that she was “gay” until her “mid-thirties.” This is an astonishing admission.]

 

Q. Had you been married before at that time?

 

A. Yes, I was married before.

 

Q. You were married to a man?

 

A. Yes, I was.

 

[Here is an important point. Advocates of same-sex “marriage” say things like, “Gay people aren’t allowed to marry,” or, “Why should someone be denied the right to marry because of who they are?” Not only is Sandra Stier not being denied the “right to marry”—she has actually been married in the past. Homosexuals, as individuals, already have exactly the same “right to marry” as any other individual—and subject to the same restrictions (no one may marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or—in California and 43 other states—a person of the same sex). The law treats same-sex couples  differently from opposite-sex couples, because a same-sex relationship is not a “marriage”— but all individuals are treated the same in terms of the “fundamental right to marry.”]

 

Q. When did you get married and where did you live?

 

A. I got married in 1987, and we lived most of the — most of that marriage in Alameda, California.

 

Q. And you had no feeling at that point in time married to a man that you were a lesbian?

 

A. At that time I did not.

 

[Another important point. When the subject is raised of people who may experience  same-sex attractions choosing to marry someone of the opposite sex, such unions are denounced by homosexual activists as “repressing who they really are” or “living a lie.” Judge Walker supported Finding 51 by claiming “that for gay men and lesbians, opposite-sex marriage . . . would compel them to negate their sexual orientation and identity.” Stier makes it quite clear that was not the case with her—she had “no feeling” that she was a lesbian, so her marriage to a man did not “negate her sexual orientation and identity.”]

 

Q. And did you have a warm, loving relationship with that individual?

 

A. Umm, I had, unfortunately, a difficult relationship for most of our marriage, but it did start out with the best intentions.

 

Q. Well, did you encounter gay people growing up in Iowa? I’m wondering how this evolved, this — your realization of how you characterize yourself these days. Tell us how that evolved from your youth in Iowa?

 

A. Growing up in Iowa on a farm in the country where the — you know, the small town that I went to high school in had 1500 people and the towns around us were fairly similar. I really had a fairly sheltered upbringing; a good upbringing, but sheltered. We spent most of our time in our home, you know, working with my parents. We didn’t really travel and go to any place that was very different from where I grew up. And I did not know of any gay people. I didn’t even know of gay people or, really, even the concept of a gay lifestyle or sexuality until I was like a teenager.

 

Q. Tell us when you moved to California?

 

A. I moved to California in 1985 when I graduated.

 

THE COURT: Were you married in Iowa before you came to California or were you married after you came to California?

 

THE WITNESS: I moved here in 1985 and got married in 1987. So that was in California.

 

THE COURT: And did you meet your husband in California?

 

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

 

BY MR. OLSON:

 

Q. Tell us about that. Did you have a relationship with him for a certain period of time before you got married?

 

A. Yes, I did. We dated for about a year before we got married.

 

[Again, her relationship with her husband developed in a way entirely typical of heterosexual relationships and marriages.]

 

Q. And give us the date, again, of the marriage?

 

A. November 14th, 1987.

 

Q. ’87. And when did the marriage come to an end?

 

A. The marriage came to an end in 1999.

 [Note that the marriage lasted for twelve years. This was not a short, “doomed from the start” type relationship—it even lasted well past the classic “seven-year itch.”

Part 2 of this post will go over Stier’s testimony about her relationship with her current lesbian partner, Kristin Perry.]

Minnery’s testimony referred to the social science evidence showing children do best when raised by their own mother and father. He referred to one such study in his prepared testimony this way:

“In fact, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services explains in its new and exhaustive report, Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001-2007, that children living with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to health care, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”

Franken, however, triumphantly noted that in fact, these superior outcomes were associated with “nuclear” families, defined as “one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family.” Since the definition made no mention of the gender of the “married” parents, he concluded that “nuclear” families could be headed by “married” homosexual couples, too.

FRC’s Tony Perkins, however, noted in his Washington Update that Franken seemed to be forgetting the very law that the hearing was about:

DOMA says, “In determining the meaning of . . . any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Since this was a federal study published by a federal agency based on a federal survey conducted by federal (Census Bureau) employees, its definition of “married” is bound by DOMA.

I had made the same point in a longer op-ed about this study in February.

Just to be sure, however, I sent an email to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which had published the study. Unfortunately, they confirmed that they had simply ignored the mandate of DOMA with respect to the definition of marriage.

Here, for the record, is the substantive part of their response:

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is conducted under the authority of the National Center for Health Statistics and obtains annual data on various health characteristics (e.g., health status, chronic conditions, disability, access to health care, etc.) of the US noninstitutionalized population. NHIS data are typically obtained via face-to-face computer-assisted interviews using fixed format questions. All NHIS data are based on self reports by respondents who decide for themselves how they wish to answer each question; the interviewer then enters the response on the computer.

Regarding marital status, all household members aged 14 or older are asked if they are “now married, widowed, divorced, separated, never married, or living with a partner.” NHIS respondents self-identify whether they are currently married, divorced, living with a partner, etc.; they are not asked questions about the type of union (e.g., civil unions, common-law marriages, etc) or date of divorce, whether either the marriage or divorce is legal according to the state they live in, or how long their union has lasted. If NHIS respondents tell us they are married, we accept that response as is. Other than making sure that the data are consistent with the universe (that is, limited to respondents aged 14 or older), no attempt is made by NCHS staff to correct the data. Moreover, the 2001-2007 NHIS did not contain questions that systematically asked about sexual orientation; gay or lesbian respondents, as well as same-sex couples, are contained in the data but are not identified. As a result, the definitions used in sr10_246 (the report on family structure and children’s health) were neutral regarding the gender of parents.

It seems to me that it would be easy enough in the interview process to briefly explain the federal definition of marriage, so that the respondent can reply to the marital status question in a way consistent with the law. Procedures for conducting these interviews should immediately be amended to bring them into conformity with DOMA.

Nevertheless, I will give one round to Franken on this technical point. But the number of “nuclear families” headed by homosexual couples in this study is likely to be negligible. As Tony Perkins noted in the same Washington Update piece quoted above,

Even if, by chance, the interviewers or authors violated [DOMA], the survey data was collected from 2001 to 2007. During that time (and only from mid-2004 on) there was only one state (Massachusetts) in which homosexual couples could “marry.”

Furthermore, even “married” homosexual couples who are raising children are unlikely to fit the definition of a “nuclear” family. Remember, a “nuclear” family requires that the “married” parents “are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family” (emphasis added). Obviously, it is biologically impossible for same-sex partners to each be biological parents of the same children.

Only if a “married” same-sex couple had jointly adopted all the children in their household would they clearly fit even this study’s lawless definition of a “nuclear” family. However, this is not the most common type of homosexual parenting situation. It is much more common for “homosexual parents” to bring to their relationships their own biological children—conceived in previous heterosexual relationships.

Advocates for homosexual parents (and for homosexual “marriage”) are fond of arguing that children do not need a mom and a dad—all they need is “two loving parents.” But this HHS study, while unfortunately not consistent with federal law in its definition of “married” parents, still offers no support for that argument.

Households featuring same-sex couples raising children are much more likely to fit one of the other “non-nuclear” household types—all of which, apart from “single-parent” families, feature at least two adult caretakers. These include “unmarried biological or adoptive,” “blended,” “cohabiting,” “extended,” or “other” families.

All of these family types had outcomes inferior to those of the “nuclear” family.

Reports indicate that efforts are underway to draft expanded “religious exemptions” that could protect the liberty of religious organizations that disapprove of homosexual conduct or of homosexual “marriage.”

It is true that pro-family groups (including FRC) have argued that legalizing homosexual “marriage” would create a threat to religious liberty. The most often cited example is how Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia after those jurisdictions legalized homosexual “marriage,” because the group was unwilling to compromise its principles by placing adoptive children with homosexual couples.

But even if religious non-profits like Catholic Charities were to be protected, what about Christians in business, like the wedding photographer in New Mexico who was sued for declining to photograph a homosexual commitment ceremony?

The only kind of religious exemption broad enough to completely protect rights of conscience—one saying, basically, “Any person, organization, or business that does not approve of same-sex ‘marriage’ will not be required to recognize homosexual relationships as ‘marriages’”—would be completely unacceptable to the advocates of homosexual “marriage.” Forcing the rest of society to affirm and celebrate homosexual relationships is precisely the goal of their movement.

However, even such an absolute religious and conscientious exemption to a homosexual “marriage” bill would not make the redefinition of marriage acceptable, or even tolerable, for one simple reason—the principal objection to homosexual “marriage” has nothing to do with religion. This is something that people on both sides of this debate need to be constantly reminded of.

We are not just fighting for “the right of religions to define marriage for themselves,” apart from the definition of “civil marriage.” This is because, at its heart, marriage is neither a civil institution nor a religious institution.

Instead, marriage is a natural institution—rooted in the order of nature itself.

The reason marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman is because it takes precisely one man and one woman to create a new human life. Marriage is treated as a public institution because it is in the public interest (not just in the private interest of particular couples) for the human race to reproduce and continue into future generations.

It is also in the public interest for society to work at bonding each child to the mother and father whose sexual union produced them. This was evident even to the ancients, but modern social science has confirmed—beyond a shadow of a doubt—that children raised by their own married mother and father are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than children raised in any other living situation.

I wrote a pamphlet earlier this year listing “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex ‘Marriage.’” The threat to religious liberty was only one out of the ten. Even if that harm could be thoroughly forestalled—a grade of 10% is still a failing grade.

The core message of the opposition to homosexual “marriage” is not just, “Don’t make us perform same-sex weddings in our church.” Instead, it is: “Society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad.”

That’s true whether you are a Christian, a Buddhist, or an atheist.